Should Cell Phones Be Enforced With Mobile Devices?

David Leon Riley was pulled over by a police officer for a driving a vehicle with expired license tags. The police officer who initially stopped Riley discovered that his driver’s license had also been suspended. Following department procedures, the police officer then continued to impound his vehicle. Before the car was impounded, the police officers are required to do an inventory of all of the components of the vehicle to prevent being liable for any missing items after the car is recovered, as well as, to discover any illegal or dangerous items. During the vehicle search, officers found two handguns under the hood of Riley’s vehicle and then proceeded to arrest Riley for the possession of firearms. When the arresting officer conducted a person’s search of Riley, it was found that Riley had a cell phone in his pocket. The cell phone was taken by police and taken back to the station where an analyst discovered data on Riley’s cell phone that was ultimately used to tie Riley to a drive-by shooting that had occurred a few weeks earlier. Based on the pictures and video recovered by the detective analyst specializing in gangs, and ballistics tests conducted on the two hand guns found in Riley’s vehicle, the state of California charged Riley in connection with the shooting. The arresting officer accessed data stored on Riley’s cell phone and noticed a repeated term associated with a street gang.

Or I fit consider as an unreasonable search. In fact, according to the Fourth Amendment it is not allowed to search or seize without a warrant. The issue in Riley’s case was that the police officer searched his phone without a warrant that gives him the green light to search or seize. However, there are some exceptions in the Fourth Amendment which may allow the

Roberts Jr. He declared, in a unanimous decision, that a warrant is required to search a cell phone. He supported this decision using the warrantless search test from Chimel v. California. “Digital data stored on a cell phone cannot itself be used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer or to effectuate the arrestee’s escape. Law enforcement officers remain free to examine the physical aspects of a phone to ensure that it will not be used as a weapon…however data on the phone can endanger no one” (Riley v. California 10). Also in the opinion, the Court declared that cell phones are like minicomputers with massive amounts of private information, which is different from an item like a wallet. The only allowable unwarranted search and seizure of one’s cell phone is in an emergency when the government’s interests are so compelling that a search would be

The Government argued the defendants’ Fourth Amendment not violated under the constitutional because the parked vehicle was at a public lot. In some States, the Government has the authority to allow police officers to search a vehicle without the necessity of warrant. “...as long as a state is deciding law based upon its interpretation of its own constitution, the state can be more restrictive than the Supreme Court. However, if the state is interpreting the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution, then they must follow the body of law established by the United States Supreme Court”(Policelink). The Government believes the attachment of the monitoring device for search was a responsible forfeiting act. As well as wiretapping the defendants cellular to help them enforce a predominantly well prepared investigation.

Riley v. California is a Supreme Court case that pertains to the Fourth Amendment; specifically, the privacy clause. This case was decided by the Court in 2014 with a unanimous decision for Riley. It came to the Court after the petitioner, Riley, was stopped for a traffic violation and then arrested on a weapons charge. The arresting officer proceeded to search Riley and removed a cell phone from his pocket. After accessing the phone the officer found evidence of gang related activity. The officer took Riley back to the station and a detective that specialized in gang related crime went through the phone and found multiple pictures and videos pertaining to a shooting a few weeks prior. They sought to enhance the charges due to the evidence found on his phone that connected him to the gangs. Riley moved to suppress the evidence that was discovered on his phone; the trial court denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed. A number of interests groups appeared as amici in this case including: EPIC, American Civil Liberties Union, Cato Institute, DKT Liberty Project, Constitutional Accountability Center amongst others submitted briefs in support of the petitioner. Two groups submitted briefs in support of the respondent and those include Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies and Arizona et al.

Imagine you are in the middle of your typical day-to-day activities. Maybe you are driving, spending time with family, or working. If you are like most people, your phone is at your side on a daily basis. Little do you know that, at any time, police and law enforcement could be looking at information stored on your phone. You haven’t done anything wrong. You haven’t been asked for permission. You aren’t suspected of any crime.

According to the Verdict, David Riley was stopped by a police officer for a traffic violation. When they stopped him, they found out that he had his license suspended and his car was impounded. When they found out that the vehicle was impounded, they searched his car and discovered two handguns. Police

On his website, a Utah DUI Attorney, David Rosenbloom speaks about violations of the Fourth Amendment.  He states that police officers “pay little attention to the fourth amendment… [because] it is not a self-enforcing right, such as the freedom of speech” (Rosenbloom).  In short, if a citizen believes his or her rights were violated and they were illegally searched/things were seized from them, they must “ask a court to examine the case and apply the fourth

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects every individual’s personal privacy, and every person’s right to be free from unwarranted government intrusion in their homes, businesses and property, regardless of whether it is through police stops and checks or the search of their homes. In the context of Mr. Smith’s Arrest, he was arrested without a warrant of arrest and there was a search, which was conducted by a private citizen on his premises without a search warrant, the courts upheld his arrest and subsequent conviction thus implying that all due process was followed before reaching at the verdict. The constitutionality of search and arrest without a warrant was challenged in the case of PayTon v. Newyork, (1980) (Payton v. New York | Casebriefs, 2017).

The Fourth Amendment is the first line protection against the government and their officials from violating our privacy. The Fourth Amendment provides safeguards to individuals during searches and detentions, and prevents unlawfully seized items from being used as evidence in criminal cases. The degree of protection available in a particular case depends on the nature of the detention or arrest, the characteristics of the place searched, and the circumstances under which the search takes place. This Amendment protects us in the following situations such as being questioned while walking down the street, being pulled over while driving, entering individual’s homes for arrest and searching of evidence while there. In most scenarios, police officer may not search or seize an individual or his or her property unless the officer has a valid search warrant, a valid arrest warrant, or a belief rising to the

David Leon Riley was pulled over by a police officer for driving with expired license plates. Once pulled over for operating the vehicle without valid registration, the officer discovered that Riley also had a suspended license. Following police policy for suspended licenses, the officer impounded Riley’s car. At that point another officer performed a mandatory inventory search of the car that led to the discovery of two handguns under the hood of the vehicle. Police proceeded to arrest Riley for the possession of loaded firearms. The arresting officer also found and seized a cell phone in Riley’s possession along with items associated with the “Bloods” street gang. Photographs and videos accessed on the cell phone connected Riley to the

There is a wide debate on if cell phones could testify against people. Cell phones have been around for 40 years. According to the Pew Research Center, “90% of Americans have cell phones and 60% have smart phones”. In the 40 years that phones have been around, people could be hiding things on their phones; but should that mean the authorities can go through anyone’s phone without a warrant? Police could see private stuff that people share with their loved ones, see the texts from anyone and the sender could possibly get in trouble, and they could see anyones private life stuff. The authorities should get a warrant before going through anyone's phone.

The precise definition for the term “search” does not exist under current federal law. “The supreme court first defined a search in terms of whether a physical invasion occurred in a constitutionally protected area.” Does the warrantless search and seizure of cellphone records violate the Fourth Amendment? The 4th amendment is an important bill of right for citizens but unfortunately its drawback is prominent in that it promotes crime, puts society’s safety at risk and makes police job complicated at the expense of extreme privacy.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Fourth Amendment). The text of the Fourth Amendment does not define exactly what “unreasonable search” is. The framers of the constitution left the words “unreasonable search” open in order for the Supreme Court to interpret. Hence, by looking at

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.